Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

[Slowvehicle]

I agree whole-heartedly and thank you for your well spoken and sensible replies in this thread and several others over the years.

Jay takes a no-nonsense and direct approach when it comes to addressing those who come here to argue in favor of irrationality. I recommend reading the Apollo Hoax thread(s) as a demonstration of his prowess.

I would like to endorse this notion.

Disputants like JayUtah set a high bar for the rest of us...if nothing else, watching his precision and calm at work is always entertaining, and usually instructional in both method and content.

Posters of the forum: I say thee, "JayUtah! Hear hear!"

 

[JayUtah]

Jay takes a no-nonsense and direct approach when it comes to addressing those who come here to argue in favor of irrationality. I recommend reading the Apollo Hoax thread(s) as a demonstration of his prowess.

Thank you for the kind words.

I'm here because I want to see how it all ends. Jabba will never change his tune, IMO, but I'm going to call him on his nonsensical conclusions as long as I'm here.

In the case of the Apollo hoax thread, it ended with the death of the principal hoax proponent. Let's hope that doesn't happen here.

 

[Mojo]

...we are further interested in the phenomenon of how otherwise seemingly rational people go about justifying patently illogical beliefs.

I think you may be in the wrong thread.

 

[Mojo]

I'm here because I want to see how it all ends.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

 

[CriticalThanking]

Hugh,

I lurk in this thread because I do learn new things. Example: how to present evidence, and many ways not to present evidence. I also occasionally learn new scientific or historical tidbits. I am grateful to several of the persistent posters. I even learn something about human nature when some refuse to acknowledge facts.

I don't have the patience to respond to posters who ignore most replies. I'm just glad that some do have that patience, especially those that can remain civil when doing so.

CT

 

[John Jones]

Thank you for the kind words.



In the case of the Apollo hoax thread, it ended with the death of the principal hoax proponent. Let's hope that doesn't happen here.

That very thing has occurred to me.

 

[pgwenthold]

I would like to endorse this notion.

Disputants like JayUtah set a high bar for the rest of us...if nothing else, watching his precision and calm at work is always entertaining, and usually instructional in both method and content.

Yeah, I know sometimes you feel like perhaps you should just turn this thread into one of those Onion Q&A columns, where the answers are random text from whatever source.

Jabba: "Do you agree that the presence of blood on the shroud would tilt the balance in favor of authenticity?"

No one could expect a frog with these talents to remain in a hidden pool, so he finally got out of it and mingled with the people of the tableland, who were amazed at his appearance and greatly impressed by his learning. They had never seen a frog before, and the frog had never seen a Yip before, but as there were plenty of Yips and only one frog, the frog became the most important. He did not hop any more, but stood upright on his hind legs and dressed himself in fine clothes and sat in chairs and did all the things that people do, so he soon came to be called the Frogman, and that is the only name he has ever had. After some years had passed, the people came to regard the Frogman as their adviser in all matters that puzzled them. They brought all their difficulties to him, and when he did not know anything, he pretended to know it, which seemed to answer just as well. Indeed, the Yips thought the Frogman was much wiser than he really was, and he allowed them to think so, being very proud of his position of authority.

 

[MRC_Hans]

In the case of the Apollo hoax thread, it ended with the death of the principal hoax proponent. Let's hope that doesn't happen here.

Well, if WE don't stop this one, it will. But let's hope it takes long.

Hans

 

[wardenclyffe]

He could outlive us all.

Ward

 

[Humots]

I agree whole-heartedly and thank you for your well spoken and sensible replies in this thread and several others over the years.



Jay takes a no-nonsense and direct approach when it comes to addressing those who come here to argue in favor of irrationality. I recommend reading the Apollo Hoax thread(s) as a demonstration of his prowess.

Was that thread on JREF? I have followed such threads on CosmoQuest and Apollo Hoax, but not here.

Could someone kindly provide a link? I love to watch Jay in action.

 

[theprestige]

Was that thread on JREF? I have followed such threads on CosmoQuest and Apollo Hoax, but not here.

Could someone kindly provide a link? I love to watch Jay in action.

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/

Things are pretty quiet there these days, but the archives provide reams of historical goodness.

You can also find him in the archives of the Cosmoquest forums, though things are even quieter there now than at ApolloHoax.

 

[JayUtah]

It's still here at ISF.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=251326

 

[Monza]

Monza,

- Do you accept that discovering that the stains were in fact blood would be a little bit supportive of the shroud being authentic? If so, you should accept that that discovery would also be a little bit supportive of the shroud being 2000 years old.

- That's how "the presence of blood (would) affect the age of the shroud."

No, I don't accept that at all. There is no logical line of reasoning. It is no more evidence than saying, "Gee, the guy on shroud looks kinda like I would expect Jesus to look like." Such "evidence" is no more supportive of authenticity than it is of in-authenticity. As I said before, it gets you no where.

Why do you think blood could only have come into contact with the shroud in the first century AD and not at any time after that?

 

[PizzaTheHutt]

Hugh,
- I know that you disagree with me about the ultimate preponderance of evidence, but I suspect that you agree with me that concluding that the stains were in fact blood would be at least a little bit supportive of authenticity and 2000 years of age. if so, could you help me explain my logic?

What if another burial shroud was found today that was very similar to the Shroud of Turin? It has an image that looks like Jesus and blood stains. Carbon dating shows an age of about 900 years. Which is the real shroud?

 

[Humots]

It's still here at ISF.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=251326

Thanks!

 

[John Jones]

NVM

 

[John Jones]

It's still here at ISF.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=251326

:golf clap:

 

[Rincewind]

What if another burial shroud was found today that was very similar to the Shroud of Turin? It has an image that looks like Jesus and blood stains. Carbon dating shows an age of about 900 years. Which is the real shroud?

Given that nobody knows what JC looks like, how could we decide?

 

[The Don]

What if another burial shroud was found today that was very similar to the Shroud of Turin? It has an image that looks like Jesus and blood stains. Carbon dating shows an age of about 900 years. Which is the real shroud?

The really bizarre thing is that a while ago, Jabba was arguing that the existence of The Sudarium of Oviedo was evidence of the CIQ/Shroud.

 

[MikeG]

The really bizarre thing is that a while ago, Jabba was arguing that the existence of The Sudarium of Oviedo was evidence of the CIQ/Shroud.

Did he mention that the "Sudarium" had been carbon dated to 700 AD? Or had that cloth been invisibly repaired too?